(19-04-2013 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote: No, you are stating a simplistic tautology. Your statement is that all invented systems are invented. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

I never said that. I never used the word "invented". You are making a straw man argument in lieu of a real argument. If I made a tautology then you should be able to quote one phrase I said then show it is the same as another phrase I said. You shouldn't have to make up stuff like you did.

This is a standard tactic that I see you employ. Instead of engaging in meaningful discussion....instead of making thoughtful arguments/counter arguments. You just say the other guy is wrong and cover your ears. Your like a fundie in that respect.

From what I gather from your strawman argument you seem to think that all evolutionary systems known to exist, except the one that resulted from us, are inventions. Yes or no?

(19-04-2013 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote: No, you are stating a simplistic tautology. Your statement is that all invented systems are invented. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

I never said that. I never used the word "invented". You are making a straw man argument in lieu of a real argument. If I made a tautology then you should be able to quote one phrase I said then show it is the same as another phrase I said. You shouldn't have to make up stuff like you did.

This is a standard tactic that I see you employ. Instead of engaging in meaningful discussion....instead of making thoughtful arguments/counter arguments. You just say the other guy is wrong and cover your ears. Your like a fundie in that respect.

From what I gather from your strawman argument you seem to think that all evolutionary systems known to exist, except the one that resulted from us, are inventions. Yes or no?

The basis of your argument is that all the examples of evolutionary systems require intellect. Therefore, biological evolution required intellect.

Show me an evolutionary system that provably required intellect that was not man-made.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(19-04-2013 01:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: I never said that. I never used the word "invented". You are making a straw man argument in lieu of a real argument. If I made a tautology then you should be able to quote one phrase I said then show it is the same as another phrase I said. You shouldn't have to make up stuff like you did.

This is a standard tactic that I see you employ. Instead of engaging in meaningful discussion....instead of making thoughtful arguments/counter arguments. You just say the other guy is wrong and cover your ears. Your like a fundie in that respect.

From what I gather from your strawman argument you seem to think that all evolutionary systems known to exist, except the one that resulted from us, are inventions. Yes or no?

The basis of your argument is that all the examples of evolutionary systems require intellect. Therefore, biological evolution required intellect.

Show me an evolutionary system that provably required intellect that was not man-made.

Well you got some of my argument wrong. I don't conclude that biological evolution required intellect. I conclude that of the following two premises:
1. It is logically possible biological evolution did not require an intellect.
2. It is logically possible biological evolution did require an intellect.

Premise number 2 is more likely to be true.

As far as your challenge goes, before I answer it are you conceding the fact that all evolutionary systems which origins are known have required intellect? To be honest, I'm a little inclined to just flat out ignore your challenge because that is what you do. I have challenged you on multiple occasions and have been ignored. You do not debate in good faith.

Show me an evolutionary system that provably required intellect that was not man-made.

Well you got some of my argument wrong. I don't conclude that biological evolution required intellect. I conclude that of the following two premises:
1. It is logically possible biological evolution did not require an intellect.
2. It is logically possible biological evolution did require an intellect.

Premise number 2 is more likely to be true.

As far as your challenge goes, before I answer it are you conceding the fact that all evolutionary systems which origins are known have required intellect? To be honest, I'm a little inclined to just flat out ignore your challenge because that is what you do. I have challenged you on multiple occasions and have been ignored. You do not debate in good faith.

I disagree. Your premises are unimportant. They lead nowhere.

The important question is whether there is evidence.
The evidence of biological evolution shows that we evolved from simple origins, that our intelligence evolved recently.
Your argument is based on the idea that our having created evolution simulations somehow affect the probability that life evolved naturally.
This has no effect on the evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(19-04-2013 02:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Well you got some of my argument wrong. I don't conclude that biological evolution required intellect. I conclude that of the following two premises:
1. It is logically possible biological evolution did not require an intellect.
2. It is logically possible biological evolution did require an intellect.

Premise number 2 is more likely to be true.

As far as your challenge goes, before I answer it are you conceding the fact that all evolutionary systems which origins are known have required intellect? To be honest, I'm a little inclined to just flat out ignore your challenge because that is what you do. I have challenged you on multiple occasions and have been ignored. You do not debate in good faith.

I disagree. Your premises are unimportant. They lead nowhere.

The important question is whether there is evidence.
The evidence of biological evolution shows that we evolved from simple origins, that our intelligence evolved recently.
Your argument is based on the idea that our having created evolution simulations somehow affect the probability that life evolved naturally.
This has no effect on the evidence.

You are purposely being obtuse aren't you? My argument is about all evolutionary systems, not just the biological one that produced us.

(19-04-2013 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote: I disagree. Your premises are unimportant. They lead nowhere.

The important question is whether there is evidence.
The evidence of biological evolution shows that we evolved from simple origins, that our intelligence evolved recently.
Your argument is based on the idea that our having created evolution simulations somehow affect the probability that life evolved naturally.
This has no effect on the evidence.

You are purposely being obtuse aren't you? My argument is about all evolutionary systems, not just the biological one that produced us.

If you can't show it to be true of the system that produced us, you obviously have a very weak argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(19-04-2013 03:17 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: You are purposely being obtuse aren't you? My argument is about all evolutionary systems, not just the biological one that produced us.

If you can't show it to be true of the system that produced us, you obviously have a very weak argument.

My argument is an inductive argument so it suffers from the weaknesses inherent in inductive reasoning. Your argument is incoherent and suffers from the weaknesses inherent in straw points and obsfuscation.

(19-04-2013 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote: If you can't show it to be true of the system that produced us, you obviously have a very weak argument.

My argument is an inductive argument so it suffers from the weaknesses inherent in inductive reasoning. Your argument is incoherent and suffers from the weaknesses inherent in straw points and obsfuscation.

My only argument is that the burden of proof is on you and you have not made a good argument supported by evidence.

If you find that incoherent, that explains everything.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(19-04-2013 03:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: My argument is an inductive argument so it suffers from the weaknesses inherent in inductive reasoning. Your argument is incoherent and suffers from the weaknesses inherent in straw points and obsfuscation.

My only argument is that the burden of proof is on you and you have not made a good argument supported by evidence.

If you find that incoherent, that explains everything.

That's about the only thing you said which was coherent. At least you realize that your attempts to show my logic is flawed were so poorly conceived that they didn't amount to a proper counter argument. If you don't find my argument persuasive, I'm not bothered by that. I'm actually not interested in convincing you, I'm more interested seeing if you can convince me that i am wrong.

(19-04-2013 04:19 PM)Chas Wrote: My only argument is that the burden of proof is on you and you have not made a good argument supported by evidence.

If you find that incoherent, that explains everything.

That's about the only thing you said which was coherent. At least you realize that your attempts to show my logic is flawed were so poorly conceived that they didn't amount to a proper counter argument. If you don't find my argument persuasive, I'm not bothered by that. I'm actually not interested in convincing you, I'm more interested seeing if you can convince me that i am wrong.

Several of us showed the flaws in your understanding of probability, but you shrug it off.

You try to reverse burden of proof.

Your argument about evolutionary systems is just silly. You think a tautology is meaningful.

I will no longer try to convince you of any of this. Carry on.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.